Bishop v. Woolworths Ltd (No. 2)

Bishop brought a claim against Woolworths for damages for personal injuries sustained while working for the company. The dispute was heard in the District Court of Queensland. Bishop's claim was regulated by the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, which prescribed specific procedural steps, including compulsory settlement conferences and the exchange of offers. Woolworths argued that Bishop's claim had been compromised, contrary to the allegations in her pleadings. The court was required to decide whether Bishop had indeed compromised her claim and to consider the jurisdictional implications of determining the issue of compromise when the primary claim was governed by the WorkCover Queensland Act.

The court examined the evidence and found that Bishop had not compromised her claim for damages as alleged. The court rejected Woolworths' argument that the claim had been compromised and dismissed the application for costs. The court determined that the issue of compromise was a separate question and, while it did not have jurisdiction over the primary claim due to its regulation under the WorkCover Queensland Act, it did have jurisdiction to determine the issue of compromise. The court's determination on this separate question was considered final in character.

In summary, the court found that Bishop did not compromise her claim for damages for personal injuries against Woolworths. The court dismissed Bishop's application for costs.